None Dare Call Them Sociopaths

by Jonathan Tuttle

"Father, the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Blessed Virgin." Sister Lucy of Fatima, December 26, 19571

"Sister Lucy is no longer a point of reference today since we have such a good one in the Second Vatican Council". Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon José de Cruz Policarpo, October 12, 2003

On October 10, 2003, a three-day conference convened in Fatima, entitled "The Future of God." Most notably orchestrating the gathering were the bishop of Fatima and the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon. Following suit of other feel-good ecumenical gatherings, members of other various faithsHinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, African Paganism, Islam, et al, were invited to address the assembly and give their testimonies.2

No interfaith meeting ever seems complete without the ubiquitous Jesuit apostate. Filling this role was Father Jacques Dupuis, who posited the notion that the Catholic Faith itself had been reduced to obsolescence, stating: "The religion of the future will be a general converging of religions in a universal Christ that will satisfy all." 3

One wonders how long such a project would take to remold the Gospels to the point where Christ would appeal even to an African Pagan. In the eyes of Father Dupuis, the Mystical Body is on a feeding tube, and he wants to be the one to remove it.

Though Father Dupuis is quite certain that Christ no longer thinks much of the Catholic Faith, he is nevertheless convinced that non-Catholic religions are held in high esteem by God, stating that: "The other religious traditions in the world are part of God's plan for humanity and the Holy Spirit is operating and present in Buddhist, Hindu and other sacred writings of Christian and non-Christian faiths as well." 4

Addressing the assembly, Monsignor Luciano Guerra, the Fatima shrine's director announced that Fátima...

"will change for the better...The future of Fátima, or the adoration of God and His mother at this holy Shrine, must pass through the creation of a shrine where different religions can mingle. The inter-religious dialogue in Portugal, and in the Catholic Church, is still in an embryonic phase, but the Shrine of Fátima is not indifferent to this fact and is already open to being a universalistic place of vocation...

Therefore we must assume that it was the will of the Blessed Virgin Mary that this comes about this way." 5

The shrine's director also announced that the shrine would be revamped to bring it more into line with the needs of all religions. Under his plan, the shrine of Fatima will no longer be a Catholic shrine, but a shrine at which members of any and all religions can be welcome. Perhaps divining that some traditional Catholics might be bothered by such a flagrant act of blasphemy, the good Monsignor characterized the traditional Catholics opposed to this gathering as "old fashioned, narrow minded, fanatic extremists and provocateurs." 6

An African Pagan couldn't have said it better himself.

In an official statement, the interfaith congress issued the following dire warning against proselytizing:

"No one religion can irradiate another or strengthen itself by downplaying others and an open dialogue is the way to building bridges and tearing down walls of centuries of hate. What is needed is that each religion be true to its faith integrally and treat each religion on the same footing of equality with no inferior or superiority complexes."

Well, that was the basic message of Fatima, right? "Each person be true to their religion, whatever it is"; "all religions are equal"; "do not act like your religion is better than anyone else's"; "do not attempt to convert anyone".

The fact that this interfaith service happened at all should be enough to make any Catholic lose his lunch, but the fact that it happened in Fatima should make even a lukewarm Catholic furious. In the land in which Our Lady cautioned mankind that sexual sins cause more people to go to hell than any other offenses, the adherents of these religiosities will embark on false pilgrimages while clinging to their deviances.

The centerpiece of this modernist philosophy is that all religions should be treated with respect because they are all worthy of respect. But Catholics must take serious issue with this stance because it is lacking both moral and intellectual validity.

A Study in Insanity

Since the issuance of Dignitatis Humanae, the laity has been told that they must respect others' beliefs and religions. Of course, this stance refuses to recognize the fact that respecting erroneous faiths (along with being intellectually dishonest) has the direct consequence of disrespecting my faith! Anyone who does "respect" other religions is flirting with the mortal sin of indifferentism, or latitudinarianism. If the theological reasons are not enough, one could simply make an argument from reason that false religions are not worthy of respect.

Although there are many arguments from reason which one could employ to destroy this "respect" notion, this essay centers on the following oneeven a cursory study of major comparative religions should lead one to an inescapable conclusion: almost without exception, every false religion was founded by a sociopathic sexual degenerate. Furthermore, every religion retains the personality of its founder. This is true for Protestantism, Islam, Mormonism, and every other false religion in history. By extension, every false religion bears, more or less, this character.

(A) personality disorder characterized by a conspicuous disregard for the rights and needs of others...Adults with this disorder show a lack of maturity, unwillingness to take responsibility, and emotional instability. The chief characteristic of such persons is an apparent lack of conscience. Their behavior includes a variety of antisocial and criminal acts, such as theft, engaging in an illegal occupation (for example, selling drugs), repeated defaulting on debts, sexual promiscuity, and repeated lying...7

Though the term "sociopath" and sociopathic behavior has only been comparatively recently characterized and identified, this does not change the fact that sociopaths have existed throughout almost all of recorded history. Whether or not this disorder is caused by an actual brain disturbance is of little consequence to the present discussion. It is enough to simply point out that they, in fact, possessed the proper characteristics.

To illustrate this point, three examples are used in the following discourse, and these were picked more or less at random. However, one could have also validly cited Guru Nanek (Sikkhism), Siddhartha Gautama (Buddhism), Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah's Witness), or a number of others. The names may differ and the chronology may vary, but when one studies the lives of false religious founders, their biographies are essentially the same.

Protestantism

Because of the fact that Martin Luther was a murderous anti-Semitic anti-Catholic, the casual Luther historian often loses sight of the less pertinent fact that Luther himself was a sociopathic sexual degenerate. His entire philosophy of faith without good works is the virtual battle cry of the sociopath. While the habitual sinner might make an effort to defend his actions from a moral perspective, Luther went further. Luther claimed that none of his actions were in need of repentance, nor was repentance even possible. Luther was fond of saying that man's best works were filthy rags, and throughout his entire adult life, he seems to have been intent on setting out to prove it personally. He continually called on his followers to murder priests, bishops, and popes, personally wishing the streets of Rome to flow with the blood of Catholics.

In the sexual realm, Luther lived in sin for many years. He renounced his vow of chastity and married a nun who had done the same. Luther references in several of his works that he finally wed, not because he was in love, but because he grew tired of constant onanism. Furthermore, his life and writings lead one to conclude that he saw women merely as sex objects. As he explains in a letter to several nuns, dated 6 August 1524, Luther writes:

Though womenfolk are ashamed to admit to this, nevertheless Scripture and experience show that among many thousands there is not a one to whom God has given to remain in pure chastity. A woman has no control over herself.

Luther further alluded to the fact that he fornicated with other women during his marriage, claiming that marriage alone could not suffice for the constant pressures of concupiscence. Along these same lines, we know from historical evidence that Luther was in favor of polygamy, as he claimed: "I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture." (De Wette, vol. 2, 459)

As much as his biographers attempt to historically "reform" the reformer, there is no doubt that there were few, if any, sexual deviances that Luther did not either commit or endorse.

Has Protestantism retained the character of its founder? Due to the perennial fragmentation of Lutheranism, Protestantism has rightly come to be known not so much for what it is, but for what it is not: it is not Catholicism. Many Protestants consider any branch of Christianity worthy of salvific power, except one, Catholicism. Not coincidentally, the Catholic Church constitutes the only branch of Christianity that has remained a loyal proponent of sexual ethics. This leaves the deviant non-Catholic Christian with one major problem: if he were to admit that the Catholic Church is the authentic form of Christianity, then a Christian must practice sexual ethics. For a vast number of Protestants, this is too much to ask.

Islam

There is no nice way to say it. Mohammed, founder of the fastest growing religion in the world, was a pedophile. We know from historical evidence that Mohammed consummated one of his multiple marriages when the girl in question was nine years old.

His religious writings mandate wife-beating, encourage child abuseboth physical and sexualencourage rape, and incite others to murder. Mohammed himself was personally guilty of all these crimes.

Mohammed's writings concerning Paradise read less like a prophet and more like an hallucinatory paraphiliac. In terms of a heavenly reward, Paradise was envisioned to be a place of pure carnal pleasure, with seventy-two virgins awaiting the faithful Moslem upon his death. According to Mohammed, heaven is a brothel. Allah might be there, but he is incidental to the carnal paradise.

Mohammed was also a murderer, and incited others to murder. Embarking on a vast military campaign to control the Arabian peninsula, Mohammed personally committed a number of murderous atrocities, including the beheading of hundreds of non-combatant Jews in Medina. He routinely murdered non-combatants, including women and children. Of course, as far as Allah was concerned, Mohammed did no wrong, for his victims were unbelievers.

Has Islam retained the personality of its founder? Perhaps more than any other religion, Islam is a mirror-image of its founder.

Institutionalized rape is rampant in many Islamic countries. Mass slavery is a practice exclusive to Islamic communities. Pedophilia is common practice among Moslems. Murder in the name of religion is the order of the day, as is the regular use of torture. Islamic authorities, with few insignificant exceptions, do not hesitate to murder innocent civilians. Of all the terrorist acts committed around the world during the past ten years, almost all of it has ties to Islam. Thanks to Islamist organizations and governments, genocide is currently taking place in Sudan, Algeria, Uganda, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Bosnia, and elsewhere.

Martin Luther once referred to Mohammed as the "firstborn son of Satan." In terms of the human tragedy that that has taken place as a result of the religion he founded, one finds himself sympathetic to Luther's assessment.

Mormonism

Mormonism, founded by Joseph Smith around 1830, is the fastest growing religion in the Western hemisphere.

Following the same pattern established by Luther, Mohammed, and seemingly every other religionfounder, Joseph Smith was a sociopathic deviant. Whereas Mohammed merely recommended polygamy, Joseph Smith informed his followers that a man must be married to at least three women for salvation.

Smith was obsessed with polygamy, constantly mandating the practice for his fellow "saints," and collecting wives the way another might collect coins.

Scholarly biographers attest to the fact that Smith was simultaneously married to at least thirty-three women. One-third of these women were married to Smith before they reached the age of twenty-one. Two of these girls were married to Smith at the age of fourteen. Although fourteen would be considered downright elderly by Mohammed's standards, the idea of a fourteen-year-old girl marrying a much older man didn't bother Smith.

Not only was Joseph Smith a polygamist, he also engaged in polyandry. That word needs a definition for most readers because outside the Mormon community, the word is used almost exclusively as a zoological reference. Polyandry is "the practice of having more than one husband at one time." According to biographer Todd Compton, eleven of Smith's wives "were married to other husbands and cohabiting with them when Smith married them." 8

Has Mormonism retained the personality of its founder? Mormonism certainly meets the chief characteristics of a cult; though most Mormons have renounced polygamy, many Mormon communities are polygamous and polyandrous. John Krakauer relates stories of Mormon communities in the United States in which girls as young as 14 are handed over by their fathers in marriage to men five times their age. According to Krakauer, in these communities, incest, wife-beating, and polygabuse (multiple underage wives) are rampant.9 Some of these young girls attempt to escape these communities, but live in constant fear of physical reprisals, including torture. Much of this happens with the full protection of the Mormon or Mormon-sympathizing authorities.

Crazy as Hell?

It is worth noting here that all three men just mentioned perhaps share something else in common. Joseph Smith admitted to becoming involved in the occult and witchcraft for a considerable amount of time before dreaming up the Mormon religion. Mohammed told his followers that he received visions from both Allah and Satan, and by his own admission, occasionally confused the two. This resulted in the famous "Satanic Verses," 10 a term brought into common usage with Salman Rushdie's book of the same title. In Luther's case, his own frequent reference to being physically tortured and tormented by the devil is difficult to ignore.

Conclusion

All those who have founded false religions have possessed flagrant psychological and/or spiritual problems. A good percentage of religion founders have possessed the characteristics of a sociopath, and an even greater percentage have been sexual deviants.

All the religions these men founded have, more or less, retained the personalities of their founders. And now we are told that we must put these religions on the same plane as the one true Faith? Am I supposed to respect men who so were guilty of such profound sexual deviance that it defined their character?

The mere idea of putting Our Lord on the same plane as any of these men blasphemes against the Holy Trinity and insults the Mother of God. Less importantly, this insults the intelligence of anyone within earshot.

What other erroneous notions should we "respect"? If we were at a baseball game, and the umpire were calling strikes for balls that land in the dirt, am I supposed to respect his "notion of the strike zone"? If a man drives on the wrong side of the road, am I supposed to respect his notion of the right side of the road?

If Larry Flint started a religion that attempted to impose a vicious set of sexual ethics upon his followers, should I respect that religion, too? This isn't hyperbole. Larry Flint's personality is very similar to that of many religion founders.

This ever-present lauding of false religions by current Catholic Church leaders is extremely dangerous. If it is true, as was said at Fatima, that we are supposed to treat each religion as equal, then we are being advised to treat Jim Jones equally with Christ.

This recent account of the activities at Fatima is nothing short of a blasphemous detour into the apostasy of latitudinarianism. Do I overstate my case? Could one overstate the case?

Our Lord once asked the Apostles: "Who do you say that I am?" Those who are in favor of these ecumenical gatherings such as the recent one in Fatima have answered Our Lord's question.

As much as his biographers attempt to historically "reform" the reformer, there is no doubt that there were few, if any, sexual deviances that Luther did not either commit or endorse.

While I respect this writer's point of view, concerning "Fatima," his discourse on "Protestantism" appears to be seriously bigoted propaganda. He makes bald, slanderous statements without any references to any source documents. (We can pretend that the "several wives" blurb is actual documentation, but it is not.)

"Although there are many arguments from reason which one could employ to destroy this "respect" notion, this essay centers on the following oneeven a cursory study of major comparative religions should lead one to an inescapable conclusion: almost without exception, every false religion was founded by a sociopathic sexual degenerate. Furthermore, every religion retains the personality of its founder. This is true for Protestantism, Islam, Mormonism, and every other false religion in history. By extension, every false religion bears, more or less, this character."

"Although there are many arguments from reason which one could employ to destroy this "respect" notion, this essay centers on the following oneeven a cursory study of major comparative religions should lead one to an inescapable conclusion: almost without exception, every false religion was founded by a sociopathic sexual degenerate. Furthermore, every religion retains the personality of its founder. This is true for Protestantism, Islam, Mormonism, and every other false religion in history. By extension, every false religion bears, more or less, this character."

This leaves the deviant non-Catholic Christian with one major problem: if he were to admit that the Catholic Church is the authentic form of Christianity, then a Christian must practice sexual ethics. For a vast number of Protestants, this is too much to ask.

Well time's a wastin', somebody point me to the nearest vast Protestant orgy. All these years, and I was taught exactly the opposite.

The author's rightful outrage over the Fatima plans has lead him into a little lurid literary excess, to put it mildly.

You know, I missed the whole "Doctrine of Orgy". Most of been sick that day or something. Of course if the author is going to make slanderous remarks, I could ask about the amount of money being spent to cover up, I mean settle, all the sex abuse cases. But hey, I am just a Lutheran, so I can't possibly know true sexual ethics .

But hey, I am just a Lutheran, so I can't possibly know true sexual ethics .

I'm a Southern Baptist and if I believed the author, I'd say we both got left off the party list. :)

The author plainly went overboard, and left himself wide open to counter cat-calling, because both Protestants and Catholics do preach sexual ethics, and both groups have notible failures.

Personally, I always thought that Luther was lucky to have lived in the days of the Medici Pope, Leo X. The practices of the earlier Borgia Pope, Alexander VI, would have really driven him up the wall.:)

I find intriguing that, in attacking Luther, the author has to consider marriage a sign of sexual immorality. And the absolute worst that they could drag up against him concretely (but no citations to back it up) is that he masterbated before marraige.

It seems to me that there were a few Catholic priests who did worse to little boys... and the Vatican covered up for them.

You didn't need it, I think we both shared the joke about the vast majority of Protestants rejecting sexual ethics.

It lends itself to some interesting scenerios, though. I can't imagine what would happen if the vast majority of your Lutheran brethren were to reject sexual ethics, but if it suddenly happened among Southern Baptists - well, at the very least, potato salad and barbeque brisket would be flying everywhere. :D

We can always laugh, y'know.:)

14
posted on 11/25/2003 1:55:19 PM PST
by xJones
(You should have known better, and what is a nice guy like you doing here?)

I find intriguing that, in attacking Luther, the author has to consider marriage a sign of sexual immorality. And the absolute worst that they could drag up against him concretely (but no citations to back it up) is that he masterbated before marraige.

This article was written by a weird duck named Jonathan Tuttle, and the Seattle Catholic let him rant. He lumped Protestants in with Muslims, etc. No doubt, Jonathan Tuttle would scream if he read such vitrolic anti-Catholic remarks written by a Protestant author who could actually cite any number of Catholic sexual ethic scandals, both current and historical.

In reading the article from the start, it would appear Tuttle is very angry as a Catholic about plans to desecrate the Fatima site with everything from Muslims to animists. But it's up to the Pope if he lets this go on, and a yahoo blasting Luther and Protestants doesn't change a thing about the fate of Fatima.

I find intriguing that, in attacking Luther, the author has to consider marriage a sign of sexual immorality. And the absolute worst that they could drag up against him concretely (but no citations to back it up) is that he masterbated before marraige.

Well he just could have abused little girls and they would have made him a bishop

Well, Land O, you haven't posted since you posted this article. Maybe you have gone on vacation.

OTHO, maybe you are just hoping that this thread will die away, and that thereby, you will never have to be held to account for it.

I somehow imagine that you think of yourself as a person of integrity. A person of integrity would not leave an article like this, here on FR, where it could poison the mind of readers far into the future.

For your own conscience's sake, you NEED to either stand by this article, or disavow it.

Good! I am glad that I was wrong, in assuming that you might have been evading your responsibility for your article. Clearly, you were not. Further, I must apologize, not only for that false assumption, but also for the rude and accusatory way that I posted to you.

Not as any kind of excuse, but as the reason, I think that my annoyance, even anger, at this type of libelous article, caused me to aim a little of that anger at you, personally. I was wrong, to do this. I hope that you will forgive me.

With that out of the way, let us see if we can discuss the merits of the article. I will try to keep from getting into blaming, and attacks on your person.

Frankly, I think it is misleading to disparage the characters of the founders of other religions when the real evil can be found with the demonic Wojtyla and his voodoo promoting, queer protecting, Islamofascist embracing Masonic ways. Criticizing anyone other than Wojtyla only serves to take one's eyes off the real target, and it is Wojtyla that is the number one promoter of religious indifferentism. Remember, he has kissed the Koran, danced with animists, drank their libations, received Hindu's blessings, and promoted ecumenism with Lutherans. He is the one most deserving of anyone's vitriole. In comparison to Wojtyla, the rest are wangers.

The first part of this article concerned an attempt to make a Catholic shrine, or holy place, open to religious activities by other religions. I am not concerned about, or attempting to contradict, that part of the article.

[For the record, I believe that Catholic shrines belong to the Catholics. No one else should try to interfere with their activities at their shrines.]

Unfortunately, I find that I must take issue with the remainder of the article, because of three major faults:

1. It constitutes propaganda.

2. It contains many false and malicious statements.

3. It contains several serious lapses in ordinary logic.

The centerpiece of this modernist philosophy is that all religions should be treated with respect because they are all worthy of respect.

It may well be, that " all religions should be treated with respect because they are all worthy of respect," is " The centerpiece of this modernist philosophy..." I do not argue that point. My position is, rather, that we should treat ALL people with respect, and that respect should preclude our uttering slander about their religions.

But Catholics must take serious issue with this stance because it is lacking both moral and intellectual validity.

Unfortunately, instead of proving this point, Tuttle attempts to slander every religion except Roman Catholicism. This constitutes not only "bearing false witness," but also an exercise in bigotry, which also is an invitation, or a permission, for other bigoted people to vent their collective spleens. The validity of this statement is contained in post 26, above. [I have an idea that post 26 is some sort of sarcastic comment, but it is still inflammatory, and is an exhibit of bigotry.]

I am hoping that discussing this article will result in our asking ourselves:

1. Whether it is appropriate to post such blatant propaganda.

2. Whether false and bigoted statements have any place in an attempt to prove a "religious" point.

3. Whether we, as Christians, should accept, or turn a blind eye to this sort of article, EVEN if it "feels good"-- that is, fits in with our own secret bigotry.

DG

p.s. As I am able, I intend to post more about the remainder of this article.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.